Venerable Anastasius Sinaite. Chapters against Monothelites: 1-2 chapters

Translation from Ancient Greek, introductory article and notes by Abbot Adrian (Pashin) For the first time, the work of St. Petersburg is published in Russian. Anastasia Sinaita “Chapters against the Monothelites” - the first two chapters of six. In the first chapter of Rev. Anastasius reveals his teaching about three states of the human will: natural, unnatural and supernatural. In the second, he analyzes and refutes some provisions of the Monothelite teaching. The next four chapters of the “Chapters against the Monothelites” and the adjoining “Florilegium against the Monothelites” will be published in the next issues of the “Theological Bulletin”. The main fighters against monothelitism are St. Sophronius of Jerusalem (c. 560–638), St. Martin the Confessor († 655) and St. Maximus the Confessor (580–662) – did not live to see the victory over this last Christological heresy. Their work was continued by other Orthodox theologians, one of whom is St. Anastasius Sinait (d. after 701). Three works of St. Rev. are devoted to polemics against monothelitism. Anastasia. This is the “Homily against the Monothelites,” which is the third of the “Three Homilies on the Creation of Man in the Image and Likeness of God,” the “Florilegies against the Monothelites,” and the “Chapters against the Monothelites” (six chapters in total) 1 . Another work by Rev. Anastasia - “Guide”, directed against Monophysitism, including against the theology of Sevirus of Antioch, is a good basis for polemics with Monothelitism, which borrowed the theological argumentation of Sevier, in particular regarding the divine energy of Christ. If “Three words about the creation of man in the image and likeness of God” are fully or with small gaps preserved in nine manuscripts (the description of the manuscripts is given in the indicated critical edition), then only one of these manuscripts, in addition to the “Three words”, contains “Florilegium against the Monothelites” and “Chapters against the Monothelites”. This is a 13th century manuscript. Codex Vaticanus gr. 1409. This codex was published in 1833 by Cardinal von Angelo Mai in volume 7 of his “Scriptorum veterum nova collectio”. Min's "Patrology" included only "The Word against the Monothelites" 2. It consists of six parts. The first part gives the history of the emergence and development of monothelitism, and in the following parts St. Anastasius builds theological arguments against monothelitism on the basis that the soul is the image of God. “Three words about the creation of man in the image and likeness of God” by A.I. has been translated into Russian. Sidorov with detailed comments. This translation was published first in the magazine “Alpha and Omega”, and then as a separate publication in the series “Library of Fathers and Teachers of the Church” 3. For the first time, we are beginning to publish in Russian “Chapters against the Monothelites” and “Florilegy against the Monothelites.” The Florilegium contains quotations from the writings of the Arians and Apollinaris, who taught that Christ had only the Divine will, and quotations from the holy fathers, refuting this opinion of the heretics. St. Anastasius with this selection testifies to the unanimity of the Monothelites with the indicated ancient heresies regarding the absence of human will in Christ. Sinait immediately cites the anti-Arian and anti-Apollinarian statements of the early holy fathers: St. Athanasius the Great, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil the Great, St. Amphilochios of Iconium, St. Ambrose of Milan and others, who affirm the presence of a human will in Christ along with the Divine. This is a common move in logic - reducing the teachings of opponents to absurdity, that is, to heresies already condemned by the Church, which the Monothelites themselves reject. In the first of six “Chapters against the Monothelites,” St. Anastasius reveals the doctrine of the natural, unnatural and supernatural states of the human will. In the second chapter, Sinait examines and refutes some of the provisions of the heretical teaching. The third chapter confirms the doctrine of the two wills of Christ with the help of quotations from the Areopagite Corpus. In the fourth and fifth chapters he comments on those passages from the Areopagite Corpus that speak of the divinely masculine energy of Christ. In the sixth, he reduces the teaching of the Monothelites to Manichaean docetism. The peculiarity of the Monothelite polemic against the Orthodox is that the Monothelites, speaking about the unity of will and action in Christ, recognize human will and human action as only evil, only opposing God, which is why God the Word at the Incarnation cannot perceive them. In response to this, the Holy Father says that the human will, even after the Fall, can be in three states: 1. Natural will, will consistent with nature: κατὰ φύσιν. 2. The will is in a sinful state, unnatural, diabolical: παρὰ φύσιν. 3. Supernatural, Divine will: ὑπὲρ φύσιν. It is in the natural state that the human will of Christ is found. And at the moment of Gethsemane suffering, she follows His Divine will. In the first chapter of the six “Chapters against the Monothelites,” St. Anastasius illustrates the three states of the human will with various examples: the natural, impeccable will of man - to love life, to be married, to honor father and mother, to use the gifts of God for good...; unnatural will - to kill oneself, commit fornication, despise parents, use God's gifts for evil...; supernatural will - for the sake of God, to despise earthly life with its blessings, like martyrs, to remain in virginity, to abandon parents according to the word of the Lord: “If anyone does not leave father and mother and children, and does not follow Me 4, he is not worthy of Me” 5. This position became the basis for St. Anastasia in his interpretation of the Lord's suffering in Gethsemane. According to Sinait, Christ, by His human will (natural and God-given), averted death: since human nature was originally immortal and incorruptible, it loves immortality, in which it arose, and resists death, in which it did not arise. Another reason why Christ, by His human will, averted death is the hypostatic union of His human nature with the Divine. In addition to Gethsemane, the human action and will of Christ were manifested, according to St. Anastasia, and at the moment of His death, when His soul descended into hell. According to the thought of St. Anastasia, the disdainful attitude towards the human will among heretics stems from their sinfulness, due to the fact that they do not see this God-given state of the human will within themselves. This influence of heretical theology and moral-ascetic violations is mutual. The influence of knowledge of God and self-knowledge is a special topic about which St. Anastasius speaks in the first of “Three words about the creation of man in the image and likeness of God.” Another argument from Rev. Anastasia against the Monothelites is as follows. If the natural human will and natural human action are so evil that God does not assimilate them to Himself at the Incarnation, then our salvation is also impossible. After all, without co-working with God, doing good is impossible, asceticism is impossible, and therefore our salvation is impossible. In the interpretation of the passage from the Areopagitik corpus, which speaks of the divine energy of Christ, and in the refutation of the Monothelite teaching about the single complex divine energy of Christ, St. Anastasius follows St. Maximus the Confessor. He does the same in his polemic against Monophysitism in his Guide. The fact is that this doctrine was formulated by Sevier of Antioch, whom, among other Monophysites, Sinaite refutes in the Guide. An analysis of the language, style and theological arguments of two works - “Florilegia against the Monothelites” and “Chapters against the Monothelites”, preserved in only one manuscript, speaks in favor of the fact that their creator is the author of the “Guide” and “Three Words on the Creation of Man in the Image and Likeness of God,” that is, St. Anastasy Sinait. It is more difficult to talk about dating, since the author did not provide historical data in these works. Most likely, they, along with the “Word against the Monothelites” (701), belong to the very later works of St. Anastasia, whose death can be determined precisely by the dating of the “Words against the Monothelites” - 701 or a little later. A chapter showing with examples that one thing is natural, another is carnal and, again, another is Divine will So, through much that has been said, we have been taught that one thing is Divine, another is human, and, again, another is the devil’s will, in other words, consistent with nature, unnatural and supernatural. Namely: in accordance with human nature, to love life and resist death; It is not in vain that by nature human nature is loving life and hating death, but because it was from the beginning immortal and incorruptible. So, in justice, she loves immortality, in which she arose, and opposes death, in which she did not arise. For this reason, the godly Basil and St. Kirill did not call the human will of Christ fearing death, but loving life. Indeed, for two reasons it was fitting for man to thirst for life in Him: firstly, man was created from the beginning for life, and secondly, as one who came into existence seedlessly from the life of God the Word, who was essentially one-of-life and communicating with Life Itself and united to the Immortality and Incorruptibility of all, since all Immortality and all Life are disposed toward death with hatred and in opposition. Therefore, when you see the humanity of Christ turning away from death and saying: “Father, let this cup pass from Me; however, not My will be done” 6, do not in any way assume in His humanity a will that fears death, but, according to the words of Cyril and the great Basil, one that abhors death and by nature loves life as united with the Life of all. Therefore, if to love life is the natural and irreproachable will of man, as the Word revealed, then to live carnally is a carnal and unnatural will, which not only did not exist in Christ, but it was [completely] abolished, and, again, to despise this life, as the martyrs acted, is the Divine and supernatural will, which Christ revealed in Himself when He said: “The Spirit is willing,” and when added: “The flesh is weak” 7, then His humanity was marked by aversion to death and love [to life]; You will find confirmation of this same rule throughout the life of Christ, that the natural and God-given will is impeccable, the carnal will is rightly reproachable, and the Divine will is worthy of praise. Consistent with nature, the natural will is [this is marriage, the unnatural, carnal will] 8 is fornication, and the supernatural, Divine will is virginity. And therefore Christ renewed nature, incarnating without marriage and seed from the Virgin [...] 9, for the earth had not yet been devastated by the blood of sacrifices 10. And, again, in accordance with nature, this is to desire existing goods, because they were created for the sake of man, the carnal will is to use the gifts of God for evil, and the Divine will is to neglect all goods for the sake of God. To honor father and mother 11 and love relatives is a natural and impeccable will, to despise them is a carnal and evil will, and for the sake of God to abandon them, according to the word of the Lord, who said: “If anyone does not leave father, mother, and children and does not follow Me 12, he is not worthy of Me 13,” - this is the truly Divine, good, acceptable and perfect will. In the same way, food created by the Word is cognizable as a natural and God-given desire, according to what was said: “You will eat from every tree of the garden” 14 . Likewise, drinking is immaculate and created by God, otherwise Christ would not have given us His all-holy Body and Blood for food and drink 15 . So, if the desire to eat and drink, through which the nature of the body lives and is created, is divinely created and immaculate, then when you hear Christ on the cross saying: “I thirst,” 16, do not be afraid to say that the desire to drink is the human will of Christ, because the source of life - the Divine - does not thirst or hunger forever. In the same way, when you see Him from the path sitting, working and resting, 17 do not be afraid to say that He voluntarily rested sitting, according to the desire of the tired body to rest. And when you see Him sleeping at the head, 18 do not refuse to say that He slept voluntarily, according to the energy of the body. However, you do not enter to the door, that is, the human one, of Christ, but enter into the interior behind the veil 19, into the Holy of Holies 20 of His Divinity, and know that He is, although limited in the womb as a man, but also the guardian of babies in the womb as God; and He, born small according to the flesh, grows everyone as God; and He, swaddled fleshly in a manger 21, swaddled the abyss with darkness 22 like God; and He, sucking the Mother's breast, as befits a baby, gives life to people, as befits God; and He, sleeping carnally in the boat 23, awakens the dead by Divine power 24; and He, weary as a man 25, calls: “Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest 26 like God”; and He who cries: “I thirst” 27 is God who says: “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink, 28 for I am the fountain of life” 29; and He, who voluntarily hungered as a man, is the bread that came down from heaven 30 and gave [...] 31 To Him - Christ, who bowed his knees and prayed three times during the Passion 32 as befits a man, every knee in heaven, on earth and under the earth 33 bowed as to God; He, who voluntarily endures beatings like a man, 34 beats and shakes the earth and throws lightning like God Almighty; To Him, naked on the Cross as befits a man, 35 we all stand naked and open 36 as God; He is Jesus, tested by Pilate 37, testing hearts and bellies 38 at the trial, being God - a terrible Judge; He, Whom the Jews reviled as a man, is glorified by all the armies of angels as a God who loves mankind; the feet and hands of Jesus, which were pierced with nails 39, with the help of angels bind the hands and feet of the Jews and commit them to outer darkness 40; His face, which on the cross had neither appearance nor beauty 41, will flash like lightning from the sky and all the powers of heaven will be shaken 42; the holy body, which thirsted humanly on the cross 43, speaks in such a way that all the foundations of the earth are indignant, horrified, darkened and shaken. For these were the mouth of God, the hands of God, the feet of God, the side of God, the flesh of God, and everything that pertains to the flesh of God. But let the heretic not condemn these words, for I did not say “the body of the Divinity,” but “the body of God the Word,” and also “the blood of God,” and not “the blood of the Divinity”; “the speech of God,” not “the speech of the Divine”; “the mouth of God,” not “the mouth of the Divine”; “the feet of God,” and not “the feet of the Divinity,” for the Word became flesh and dwelt with us, 45 that is, by hypostasis it united with its own, holy, honest, animated and rational human flesh. Chapter in which we piously explain the antitheses of our opponents 1. “Since the Divinity of the Word,” he says, “is in the flesh and possesses it, then all the power and energy of His humanity, called a single complex energy, is transferred to Him.” To this antithesis of yours, hear what someone from outside 46 said to us: “For where,” he says, “in what place is not the unlimited Divinity of God the Word, filling heaven and earth and limiting all nations - like a drop from a bucket 47? After all, the Divinity of the Word is not limited in the flesh, for He 48 is the One Who says that I fill heaven and earth, 49 Who is everywhere present and fills everything, 50 obviously because of the unlimitedness of His indefinite essence. So what? Since He fills heaven and earth, the abyss and all visible and imaginable creation, to that extent all the energy of angels, dumb, birds, fish and plants is transferred to His Divinity, located in all creation, and is called a single complex nature and divine energy? Nonsense!" Further, when we object to this and declare that not as in the rest of creation was God the Word in soul and flesh inseparably united with Him, but in essence God the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, 51 he stated in response the following, saying: “But how does He, as God, fill heaven and earth? Explaining this, the wise Clement in the Stromata says: “As the soul fills the body in essence, so God fills and gives life to everything in heaven, both heaven and earth in essence.” If, however, God the Word exists in essence only in man united with Him in essence, then please tell us, in the death of Christ the man united with Him was divided in two, since the body was located above in the tomb on earth, and the soul descended down into the underworld, into hell. So, if the essence of the Divinity of the Word was nowhere on earth except in the soul and body united with Him, then it is obvious that it too was divided in two, so that it would not be separated from the soul or from the body when they were abandoned by the Divinity and became empty. If you tell me that the Word, like tree resin, rushed and followed the soul proceeding from the body into hell, and, like a reed, embraced the body above and the soul below, then you are speaking fables and nonsense: firstly, because the unlimited Divinity neither lengthens, nor descends, nor ascends, and secondly, because if, like a reed, God the Word extended from the body into hell, then it is obvious that He filled would be the places in the middle of the earth and the underworld, through which He passed, and would no longer be in His flesh and soul alone, but in the same way He fills heaven and earth, in the same way He would fill the person united with Him. And just as the energies of heaven and earth are not transferred to Him, so the energy of a person united with Him, that is, a church destroyed in the passions 53, is not transferred to the indestructible God of the Word. After all, the apostle said about all of us that by God’s Word we live, and move, and exist, 54 but because of this, the movements and energies of none of us are transferred to Him. “But the person united with Him is governed,” he says, “by the Divinity of the Word, the image of a servant 55 is subordinate and guided by the inclination, energy and desire of the Lord.” But tell me, what does not God the Word, who holds and moves, creates and changes everything with the word of His power, rule over and do not dominate? That’s why the prophet said: everything serves You, 57 but the energies of everything in existence that serves Him, is at His foot and submits to Him are not transferred to Him. “However, voluntarily,” he says, “and not out of some necessity, like us, Christ submitted, accepted and did human things; and besides, what happens voluntarily, and not out of necessity, is not transferred to the law of nature.” Do you see that your true goal is aimed at the destruction of the entire Economy of Christ’s Incarnation? After all, He did everything voluntarily, and not out of some necessity; however, let us assume that nothing in Christ is transferred to nature and the law of reality. Indeed, the descent from heaven is voluntary, the Incarnation, pregnancy [of the Virgin Mary] are voluntary, time, birth, growth [of the body], breastfeeding, hunger, thirst, fatigue, sleep, free passions, the Cross, death, Resurrection are voluntary; Let us assume that we will not attribute any of this to the definition of essence or nature, but will classify it as appearance and imagination of our own free will. Not only this, but also all visible and conceivable creation He created voluntarily, so let us assume that we will not attribute anything to the definition, law and structure of nature. Mani was the first to invent this: after all, when he said that what happens voluntarily and economically is not transferred to the law or the definition of nature and is not fully cognizable, then he considered the entire Economy of the Incarnation to be an appearance. 2. Let us, finally, turn to their other aporia, more precisely to the absurdity and bewilderment 58 which was conveyed to them by the one thrown down from the heights of the Lord and King, herding Egyptian pigs, who says: “The Holy Fathers say that after an indescribable union, Christ always, everywhere and in all circumstances performs a common, complex, or more godly action.” Let the beginning of their overthrow be Christ Himself, who is slandered by them, Who says: “No one ascended into heaven except the Son of Man who came down from heaven, who is in heaven” 59 . Here Christ, living on earth, Himself says that He is in heaven even before His Ascension from earth to heaven. How, tell me, does He act in heaven before He ascended in the flesh to heaven? Is it Godly or like God and only? And if he tells you that according to the divine, or general, or complex [energy], then he is convicted of saying that the doctrine of the Incarnation is an appearance, since on earth and in heaven the flesh of Christ was apparent; if [Christ] acts in heaven before the Ascension from earth only with Divine unlimited energy, then your absurd myths claiming that after the Incarnation Christ always, everywhere and in all circumstances acts with divine and complex energy are destroyed and destroyed. When the nature and energy of His holy flesh was only in Judea, and the energy of God the Word filled the universe and was everywhere, then tell me, what did He courageously produce in the eastern or western and humid countries, on islands and continents, in deserts and inland lands, in which Christ had never been in the flesh and no one saw Him there? After all, although Man is united to the unlimited God the Word, like us, He does not change in any way into His unlimitedness and omnipresence. After all, God the Word and His energy, filling heaven and earth, acts everywhere; and the limited man united with Him by hypostasis, when he was in the womb of the Virgin, did not act in any way outside the womb; and when Christ was born from the womb, then His body, finally, had no effect in the womb; being in Nazareth, Christ does not act divinely masculine in Zion; when He was in the manger, He did not act godly in Egypt; when He was in Egypt, He did not act godly in Syria; when He was on the Cross, He was not present as a godly man in Nazareth; when He was in the tomb, He did not act godly in the tomb, having active bodily senses dead; and in general, when he was on earth, he did not act godly in heaven; and now, when limited flesh is in heaven, He now acts on earth not in a godly manner, but according to His Divine, all-cosmic and unlimited energy. How will those who say that Christ acts and accomplishes with one divine energy understand [the words]: “He is risen, He is not here” 60? Where is there no Divine energy? How will they understand [the words]: “Lazarus, our friend... is dead; and I rejoice for you that I was not there” 61? By what energy was He not there: by Divine energy, by human energy, or by all of His divine energy? If you don’t say the first, then by all means say the second, and if you don’t agree with the second, then by all means say the last. Again, how do we understand [the words]: “But you don’t always have Me with you” 62? Those who say that in Christ there is one and the same energy, namely Divine, obviously do not have His Divine energy among themselves; We say that Christ is now with us not by the spatially limited nature and energy of the flesh, but by His Divine energy, Jesus Christ lives in us, comes and makes an abode with us, as he promised: “I and the Father will come and make an abode with you” 63. 3. And tell me, what is this complex energy of yours in Christ? Is it really created, or uncreated, or certainly created-uncreated, half Divine and half human? Do you teach that it is limited, or unlimited, or necessarily limited-unlimited? Do you declare that it has a beginning or is beginningless? Obviously, it is both beginning and beginningless. […] for when [the heretic] proclaims one energy or nature, then it is absolutely necessary to say that it is either all created or all uncreated; either all limited or all unlimited; Either it is entirely beginning, or it is all beginningless. Further, thinking that none of the sensible people will object to this, they turn, as they believe, to the fathers, asserting according to custom that the human will and energy of Christ are deified and after deification one can no longer speak of two wills or two energies. To this aporia of theirs, or rather bewilderment 64, let us say the following: the divine Gregory, calling the human will of Christ deified, said in the same way that His flesh, that is, our nature, is deified. Finally, if the deification of the will reduces its quantity, then it is obvious that after the deification of nature, two natures became one. After all, he says that Christ is one of two opposites, that is, Divinity and flesh, of which One is deified, and the other is deified 65. In the same way, he says that His all-holy soul is the mediator between His Divinity and the debility of the flesh 66. So, if she does not have the will and energy, then how can she mediate? After all, what mediates mediates, of course, with desire and energy. How did the rational soul of Christ grieve and yearn? 67 After all, sorrow and melancholy do not arise if there is no deprivation of will, that is, failure [in achieving] what is close to the heart, what is desired by the soul, for the word “sorrow” comes from “forsaken” 68. Therefore, being in its own sense and truly consubstantial with our [souls], the pure soul of Christ possessed impeccable powers and properties consubstantial with us and, in accordance with appropriate circumstances, used them in true feelings - rational, desirable and effective [feelings]. So tell me, how did Christ grieve over the death of Judas 69, about the death of those who crucified Him 70 and about the destruction of Jerusalem 71, which he mourned with true sorrow and with the feeling of a thinking and compassionate heart? If this is not so, then tell me - it is said: “Do not offend the Holy Spirit with whom you are sealed” 72 - and Christ said: “My soul is grieved to death” 73. Are the sorrow of the uncreated Holy Spirit and the sorrow of Christ’s created soul similar? No. After all, impassive, since He is the uncreated God, the Holy Spirit is neither grieving, nor yearning, nor worried, nor anxious; The rational soul is characterized by sorrow for the good given to it by God, or sorrow for the sake of God, as Paul says, is an intercessor for salvation 74 . After all, grief, passion, anger and everything like that are spoken of in the Divine as alien and anagogically, but in a rational soul they are considered natural, given from God by goodness, because it is good to be angry and irritated by evil. As a result, it is said about Christ that He looked at the Jews with anger 75. But still, the anger of Christ is not like our anger, His sorrow is not like our sorrow, His melancholy is not like our melancholy, and everything else human that is in Him and that is spoken of in relation to Him. After all, we are of necessity subject to the natural needs of the body, and Christ, being God, Lord and Creator of nature, controlled everything that is characteristic of [human] nature, when he wanted and how he wanted. If some of the fathers said that Christ did not know [something] and was grieving as a human being, do not scold these artless expressions, but investigate when, to whom and for what purpose this was said. After all, everything that concerns Christ is deep and inscrutable 76 . Not only once, but also twice and thrice and four times He escaped death: firstly, he fled from Herod to Egypt 77, secondly - from Archelaus to Nazareth 78, thirdly - from those who wanted to stone Him 79, fourthly - from those who would overthrow Him from the mountain 80, not because he was afraid of death, the One who gives life to every breath and who raises all people from their graves with a word, but because He voluntarily assimilates and heals everything that has crept into us due to disobedience. So do not be surprised if He, having accepted our curse and become a curse 81, briefly allowed mortal anguish to manifest itself in His own flesh 82, because it is even more offensive and more unworthy than to talk about mortal anguish to say that Christ was accompanied and tempted by the devil for forty days in the desert 83. If the enemy tells me that He was tempted for our sake so that we would overcome and not be tempted 84 and became an oath 85 in order to heal our curse, I ask: follow the same rule about the human will and energy in Christ and conclude that He who for our sake accepted the oath 86 and the temptation of the devil 87 in order to heal them, accepted along with others the divinely created properties of our nature and the will instilled by God in the soul in order to heal it, so that it does not want and does not commit devilish and carnal wills, but bows to and desires the Divine will. In the same way, He assimilated our energy, created in His image, in order to teach it not to do or do anything displeasing to God. After all, an oath is not created by God, neither is sin, nor temptation from the devil, nor mortal melancholy; God did not create death, corruption, or disintegration of the currents of the human body. You say that Christ accepted all this in order to heal. So, if what is contrary to nature and what He did not create, He took, accepted and assimilated, and what He created in the soul in His image and likeness - its desired and active power, He did not accept, but rejected as evil, then what God created will turn out to be more vicious and unclean than the oath, sin and temptation of the devil, as not only rejected by God, but also abandoned by Him unhealed and unhealed. If our spiritual will and energy remain unaccepted and unhealed, then we are unforgiven and unhealed, since we desire sin and act through our unhealed will and action. Gregory the Theologian, St. 1912 – Gregory the Theologian, St. Creations. St. Petersburg, 1912. T. 1, 2. [Grigorii Bogoslov, sviatitel'. Creation (Works). Saint Petersburg, 1912. Volume 1, 2.] Sidorov 1998, 1999 – Anastasy Sinait, Venerable. Three words about the creation of man in the image and likeness of God / Transl. A. I. Sidorov // Alpha and Omega. M., 1998. No. 4 (18). pp. 89–118; 1999. No. 1 (19). pp. 72–91; 1999. No. 2 (20). pp. 108–146. Republished in: Anastasius Sinait, St. Selected creations. M., 2003. pp. 25–189. [Anastasii Sinait, prepodobnyi. Tri slova ob ustroenii cheloveka po obrazu i po podobiiu Bozhiemu (Three words on the dispensation of man in the image and likeness of God) / Perevod A. I. Sidorov // Al'fa i Omega (Alfa and Omega). Moscow, 1998. No. 4 (18). P. 89–118; 1999. No. 1 (19). P. 72–91; 1999. No. 2 (20). P. 108–146. Pereizdano v: Anastasii Sinait, prpepodobnyi. Izbrannye tvoreniia (Select works). Moscow, 2003. P. 25–189.] Uthemann 1985 – Anastasii Sinaitae. Sermones duo in constitutionem hominis secundum imaginem Dei, necnon Opuscula adversus monotheletas / Ed. K.-H. Uthemann. Turnhout – Leuven, 1985 (CCSG 12). Saint Anastasius of Sinai. Chapters against monothelites: 1–2 chapters / Translation from Ancient Greek, introductory article and notes by hegumen Adrian (Pashin) For the first time ever the work of St. Anastasius of Sinaís “Chapters against the Monothelites” (two chapters out of six) are translated into Russian. In the first chapter, St. Anastasius reveals his doctrine of the three states of the human will: natural, unnatural and supernatural. In the second one, he analyzes and refutes some of the provisions of the monophelite doctrine. The next four chapters of the “Chapters against Monothelites” and the “Florilegia against Monothelites” that adjoin them will be published in the following issues of the Theological herald. Anastasius Sinaita. Contra Monophysitas // PG 89, 1180–1190. Wed: Matthew 26:39; Luke 22:42. The necessary insertion was made by the editor of the critical edition, Utemann. There is a gap here in the manuscript. Compare: Isa.1:11–15; Jer.7:21-34; Ps.50:8-13. Compare: Exodus 20:12; Deut.5:16; Matthew 15:4, 19:19; Mark 7:10, 10:19; Luke 18:20; Eph.6:2. Wed: Matthew 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26. Wed: Matthew 8:24; Mark 4:38; Luke 8:23. Wed: Luke 7:12–15; John 11:43–44. Wed. John 4:14, 10:28, 11:25, 14:6. There is damage here in the manuscript. Wed: Matthew 26:6–44; Mark 14:32–41. Wed: Matthew 26:67; Mark 14:65; John 18:22, 19:3. Wed: Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23–24. Wed: Matthew 27:2–26; Mark 15:1-15; Luke 23:1–7; John 18:28–19, 16. Wed: John 20:25; Ps.21:17. Wed: Matthew 24:27; Luke 17:24. Most likely, under this “external” prp. Anastasius means the Nestorian Maron of Edessa. In the “Guide” (Anastasius Sinaita. Viae dux 13, 10, 105–106) Sinaita quotes his words: “Is there a place, foolish ones, where the unlimited Divinity is not present? After all, filling heaven and earth and being present everywhere, It was certainly present in the tomb of Jesus, as well as in all creation.” From the prayer “To the Heavenly King”: “Who is everywhere and fulfills everything.” Compare: Jesus answered and said to them: Destroy this church, and in three days I will raise it up. To this the Jews said: This church took forty-six years to build, and will You raise it up in three days? And He spoke about the church of His body (John 2:19-21). So we translated the meaning of the used word into Russian. Anastasius plays on words: ἄπορον (= ἀπορία) - aporia, difficulty, bewilderment, ψυχρόν - cold, ghostly, ἄπειρον - unlearned, boundless. Matthew 26:11; Mark 14:7; John 12:8. A play on words similar to the beginning of the second part of this chapter: ἀπορία - aporia, difficulty, bewilderment, ἀπειρία - inexperience, ignorance St. Gregory the Theologian. Homily 38, on the Epiphany, or on the Nativity of the Savior, 13 (Gregory the Theologian, St. 1912. P. 529). St. Anastasius derives the word λύπη (sorrow, sadness, grief) from the verb λείπω (to leave). Wed: Matthew 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13. Wed: Matthew 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1-13; Hebrews 2:18. Compare: Gregory the Theologian, St. 1912. P. 10.